How is this supposed to be a counterexample? I'll have to lean on Google Translate for the French, but here are the first two verses of the English song:
You may have the money
But you've got to go
It's sensible (it's sensible)
And those endless seasons
That go on and on
Incredible
But I'd sooner get out
And remember where we went last year
You said everything about it moved on your career
If you want to go
I'll take you back one day
Here are the first two verses of the French song:
It's a corner [hidden spot?] lost
on the Atlantic
It's exotic (it's exotic)
A secret corner
under the palms
It's fantastic
I could show you
how to get there, it's very easy
Close your eyes and let your eyelashes tangle
Here we are already
Welcome to the bay
These songs are set to the same music, but they are otherwise unrelated to each other. This is like saying that Weird Al Yankovic translated Gangsta's Paradise into English.
Are you serious? Both songs are about going to "The Bay". Both songs compare The Bay to Berlin, London, Paris. Both of the choruses are literally "It feels so good , to be in the Bay".
If you're arguing that lyrics must be word-for-word translation for a song to be "translated", then that's an obnoxious strawman that I can't take seriously.
But in the English song, "the Bay" is an actual place in which the singer and a particular addressee have vacationed in the past, and in the French song, "the Bay" is an imaginary place which the singer invites a generic audience to indulge in.
Speaking of which, the English song is notionally sung to someone known to the singer, and the audience is conceptually overhearing it, while the French song is sung to the audience.
The two songs don't have anything in common. They both compare their bay to Berlin, London, and Paris, in the sense of saying that the Bay is not any of those places. Mount St. Helens is also not Berlin, London, or Paris. Have I just made a second translation of The Bay into English? Does it make any difference that Mount St. Helens is a volcano?